Report 774
Report #774 Skillset: Celestialism Skill: Weakness Org: Celestines Status: Completed May 2012 Furies' Decision: Solution 2. Problem: Currently Weakness is a Japhiel pledge affliction, that remains thematically inappropriate and has limited to little use for a Celestine. We feel that the following solutions offer a more thematic approach and at the same time addresses more utility as an affliction 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Change weakness with transfix, sets it on par with Nifilhelma utility being a writhe cure without being an actual copy, it will strip blindness first, as wisdom first clarifies the sight before transfixing you with its wonders 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Change weakness with Disloyalty, new found wisdom undermines your confidence in your masters so you are brainwashed into attacking them 0 R: 0 Solution #3: Change weakness with diziness, the strong mental assault leaves you dizzy and unstable Player Comments: ---on 4/23 @ 15:05 writes: The solutions are arranged by decreasing favor and evaluated strength of the afflictions ---on 4/24 @ 22:42 writes: I am very much against Solution 1. The closest thing to it is the spix, which hits only every 12 seconds and cannot be sped up. You'd also be able to evoke this effect with your symbol, making the problem worse. Solution 2 is... alright, though masked afflicting with disloyalty has the potential to really screw up certain classes (all of the other guardians). Solution 3 dosn't seem worthwhile, however. ---on 4/25 @ 06:41 writes: Other solutions I can suggest is to replace weakness with confusion, or allow a one line illusion of the Celestine's choice to fire ---on 4/25 @ 12:33 writes: I have to agree with Enya on this. Transfix seems a little too much. I was going to actually suggest making the Japhiel afflictions entirely masked. At least that way, the current weakness will be made slightly more useful. Coupled in with the rest of the Japhiel afflictions however, this might be a bit too much. I'm sure there's a middle ground here, though. ---on 4/25 @ 15:59 writes: Masking angel afflictions is hardly the balanced way to go here. While I may concede that an 8 second transfix can be a bit overwhelming, solutions 2, 3 and 4a/b are sound options. To clarify why I wanted to push for solution a is that, if compared with Shackles in Nihilism, which is also a writhe cure, and unobstructed by blindness, Transfix is hardly an issue, since it will also respect blindness first. ---on 4/25 @ 16:07 writes: With regards to Enyalida's statement, regarding dizziness, the reason I suggested this is to address a form of utility in preventing an enemy from running away or using a transplanar device immediately, compared to weakness, so it is quite worthwhile. The only reason why I hesitated to push for confusion is that Celestines already have access to confusion, though uncontrolled via heretic-infidel. However, I would agree to implement it over the other three solutions noted initially in the report. Disloyalty, as Enyalida stated would appear limited in use, but I wish to push for this, to address this special need ---on 4/25 @ 20:44 writes: Solution 1 is no good. Transfix costs 2p in glamours and you want it for free because it is cured by writhe? Solution 2 or 3 maybe but I'm not convinced it's needed. ---on 4/26 @ 11:22 writes: Could go with ropes entanglement potentially, if you need an alternate writhe cure aff. ---on 4/29 @ 23:28 writes: Ropes is just as bad as transfix, Raeri. I have no problems with Solution 3. ---on 5/1 @ 03:02 writes: Nifilhema is not only a writhe cure, but provides the ability to summer/tipheret away the ropes, very much needed against a Nihilist. If it were only a writhe cure, that'd be extremely powerful. ---on 5/1 @ 03:07 writes: Transfix is a far longer writhe than Nifilhema, and as Silvanus mentioned is also uncurable by tipheret/summer. I'd rather go with solution 2 or 3. I agree that weakness is definitely not that great an affliction for a celestine, but transfix is something that should never be passive. ---on 5/1 @ 21:40 writes: Solution 2 or 3 is fine ---on 5/2 @ 17:30 writes: Solution 2 or 3 also fine with me. ---on 5/5 @ 18:58 writes: Definitely not Solution 1 for the reasons given by others, Solutions 2/3 supported though. ---on 5/6 @ 02:38 writes: Will support Solution 3 (preferred), and possibly Solution 2 (less so). No to Solution 1. ---on 5/6 @ 09:13 writes: Solution 3 or 2. ---on 5/24 @ 00:26 writes: Solution 2 or 3.